[CVE-2020-36518] move jackson-databind to 2.13.2

[peternied]

Description

Security took a fix for a opensearch-project/security#1687 and now is seeing a jar hell conflict. This will fix that conflict and fix the CVE in this version of OpenSearch

Caused by: java.lang.IllegalStateException: jar hell!
class: com.fasterxml.jackson.dataformat.cbor.CBORConstants
jar1: /opensearch/plugins/.installing-15168128924324[135](https://github.com/peternied/security/runs/5634491143?check_suite_focus=true#step:11:135)285/jackson-dataformat-cbor-2.13.2.jar
jar2: /opensearch/lib/jackson-dataformat-cbor-2.12.6.jar
	at org.opensearch.bootstrap.JarHell.checkClass(JarHell.java:317)
	at org.opensearch.bootstrap.JarHell.checkJarHell(JarHell.java:212)
	at org.opensearch.plugins.PluginsService.checkBundleJarHell(PluginsService.java:676)
	... 11 more

Check List

• New functionality includes testing.
  • All tests pass
• New functionality has been documented.
  • New functionality has javadoc added
• Commits are signed per the DCO using --signoff

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.

[peternied]

@saratvemulapalli I am attempting to merge this PR onto 1.x and you've labeled it as v2.0.0 should this PR be recreated against main?

[opensearch-ci-bot]

❌   Gradle Check failure 82e09c6
Log 3628

Reports 3628

[opensearch-ci-bot]

❌   Gradle Check failure 2357857
Log 3629

Reports 3629

[peternied]

I believe the gradle check failure is resolved with #2543

* What went wrong:
Execution failed for task ':distribution:bwc:minor:buildBwcLinuxTar'.
> Building 1.3.0 didn't generate expected file /var/CITOOL/workflow/OpenSearch_CI/PR_Checks/Gradle_Check/search/distribution/bwc/minor/build/bwc/checkout-1.3/distribution/archives/linux-tar/build/distributions/opensearch-min-1.3.0-SNAPSHOT-linux-x64.tar.gz

[nknize]

@peternied yes. please update the version on main first and then backport through applying the backport labels. This way we have a seamless upgrade across branches.

[saratvemulapalli]

@peternied yes. please update the version on main first and then backport through applying the backport labels. This way we have a seamless upgrade across branches.

Thanks for this @nknize. I missed the change is merging to 1.x :).

[peternied]

Closing in favor of #2548